SGDQ 2014 Feedback Thread

Deuceler

Edit history:

Deuceler: 2014-07-10 10:49:31 am

Deuceler: 2014-07-10 10:49:22 am

2014-07-10 10:31:31 am

SPEEDruns not SAFEruns

edit

Cenze

2014-07-10 10:32:32 am

Quote from TheMG2:

Also I really don't see the benefit of having 3 estimates, this just sounds confusing and would need to be explained to a lot of people.

I think gold/silver/bronze medals are fairly self-explanatory. I guess it depends on how it's visually presented but seeing those times next to "Estimated Time" or "Target Time" would make sense to me. Kind of like some games that gives you better medals for completing something quickly.

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.

That's certainly possible as well, but I notice different runners have different approaches, and for some games it might be difficult to explain everything that's going well or poorly. The option would be there to give one estimate, but I would imagine some runners would take up the opportunity to give more. Otherwise I guess the discussion wouldn't be happening. They know these are just arbitrary numbers, but players can be goal oriented, and they're also a tangible goal that could potentially create drama or excitement for the runner to play off of in an environment where PBs are unrealistic.

[quote="TheMG2"]
Also I really don't see the benefit of having 3 estimates, this just sounds confusing and would need to be explained to a lot of people.[/quote]
I think gold/silver/bronze medals are fairly self-explanatory. I guess it depends on how it's visually presented but seeing those times next to "Estimated Time" or "Target Time" would make sense to me. Kind of like some games that gives you better medals for completing something quickly.

[quote="TheMG2"]I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.[/quote]

That's certainly possible as well, but I notice different runners have different approaches, and for some games it might be difficult to explain everything that's going well or poorly. The option would be there to give one estimate, but I would imagine some runners would take up the opportunity to give more. Otherwise I guess the discussion wouldn't be happening. They know these are just arbitrary numbers, but players can be goal oriented, and they're also a tangible goal that could potentially create drama or excitement for the runner to play off of in an environment where PBs are unrealistic.

boredeathly

2014-07-10 10:34:48 am

Quote from Reafexus:

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.

Because they are not explaining. That is the entire point. When a run is finished a massive wall comes down in front of viewers. "You are not allowed to be here to celebrate a good run with us because we refuse to tell you how good/bad of a run this was compared to the arbitrary, nowhere near the estimate on screen, time we are comparing to."

Honestly, if someone can't tell if a run is good or not based on how much they enjoyed watching the run and listening to the runner talk, some other number on the stream overlay isn't going to help them.

UberGoose

2014-07-10 10:37:38 am

Quote from boredeathly:

Quote from Reafexus:

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.

Because they are not explaining. That is the entire point. When a run is finished a massive wall comes down in front of viewers. "You are not allowed to be here to celebrate a good run with us because we refuse to tell you how good/bad of a run this was compared to the arbitrary, nowhere near the estimate on screen, time we are comparing to."

Honestly, if someone can't tell if a run is good or not based on how much they enjoyed watching the run and listening to the runner talk, some other number on the stream overlay isn't going to help them.

I absolutely second this. The point isn't whether the run is good compared to anything, time is irrelevant. If time is relevant to the viewers then they come up with their own standards ie: "wow OOT in 20 minutes!!" or they look into the runner and find their PB. The average viewer decides whether a run was good or bad based on how much they enjoyed it, or if the runner specifies, they aren't chickens with their heads cut off who need their hand held. Commentary is and always will be more important than an absolute time.

[quote="boredeathly"][quote="Reafexus"][quote="TheMG2"]

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.[/quote]

Because they are not explaining. That is the entire point. When a run is finished a massive wall comes down in front of viewers. "You are not allowed to be here to celebrate a good run with us because we refuse to tell you how good/bad of a run this was compared to the arbitrary, nowhere near the estimate on screen, time we are comparing to."
[/quote]
Honestly, if someone can't tell if a run is good or not based on how much they enjoyed watching the run and listening to the runner talk, some other number on the stream overlay isn't going to help them.[/quote]

I absolutely second this. The point isn't whether the run is good compared to anything, time is irrelevant. If time is relevant to the viewers then they come up with their own standards ie: "wow OOT in 20 minutes!!" or they look into the runner and find their PB. The average viewer decides whether a run was good or bad based on how much they enjoyed it, or if the runner specifies, they aren't chickens with their heads cut off who need their hand held. Commentary is and always will be more important than an absolute time.

jape

2014-07-10 10:37:45 am

im really not trying to be a jerk or a bad guy, but this medals stuff and estimates and wr and w/e crap is really crap. maybe it was different because i knew the people involved but the most fun i had watching a run at the marathon was the stupid ass smw race. can you imagine a medal system for that?? other than giving rk the gold medal in gymnastics floor routine, LOL! but i digress, its all bad ideas. the perfect solution has been offered, which is to get rid of setup time in estimate, and then to play the games. i almost puked in my mouth but dont worry its coz im sick not casue of the ideas lol :-P.

this is all a kewl discussion though Smiley

but i hope that some people asking for other times and stuff will see things my and others way. if not then thats okay..i guess. it seems like common sense to me though.

TheMG2

Edit history:

TheMG2: 2014-07-10 10:43:50 am

TheMG2: 2014-07-10 10:43:47 am

2014-07-10 10:39:29 am

Quote from Reafexus:

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves.

Because they are not explaining. That is the entire point. When a run is finished a massive wall comes down in front of viewers. "You are not allowed to be here to celebrate a good run with us because we refuse to tell you how good/bad of a run this was compared to the arbitrary, nowhere near the estimate on screen, time we are comparing to."

They aren't necessarily comparing to a time. It could be that they got all the major tricks first try. It could have been they were deathless. It could even maybe... just maybe... be that they had a lot of fun. It could be a huge number of things. You should not be caring about the exact time at a GDQ.

Leave it up to the runner to mention. Forcing it is stupid

EDIT: The SMW race that Jape mentioned is an extremely good example why you should not do this.

Cenze

2014-07-10 10:44:41 am

Quote from TheMG2:

Leave it up to the runner to mention. Forcing it is stupid

Obviously you wouldn't force people to give second estimates, or use them in races. That wouldn't make any sense. Nonetheless if some runners wanted to use it (apparently they do since the subject came up), then you could consider a system that might work without creating negative feedback for missing the 'good" time.

Worn_Traveler

2014-07-10 10:44:47 am

Formerly known as Skullboy

Is the goal of the marathon to hype the charity through good runs, regardless of time, or to hype the runs and raise money on the side for charity?

Loerwyn

2014-07-10 10:46:18 am

Quote from zastbat:

Quote from Loerwyn:

As for the penalty? Well, I would have thought your run being considered void would be penalty enough. And if you're constantly making mistakes, then there is also the idea you may potentially lose viewers to your own stream. I know there's a runner or two I would certainly not be researching based on their SGDQ performances.

The idea of a penalty is by far the worst thing to come up in this thread. Voiding out someones run because they broke sda rules would be the stupidest shit anyone could have ever think of considering the fact that there are quite a few parts of the community that do not care about sda rules and this would also mean you are not allowed to use backup saves made before hand or risk being punished for it. Also everyone is going to make mistakes in their runs and if you fuck up hard enough your run is mercy killed that is enough imo. Also no one is going to lose viewers in their stream because of one marathon run they may not gain any but they wont lose any. As for you not wanting to research people because of a bad marathon performance that really is a shame since that might not have been in their control.

So basically what im saying is screw penalties and if a run is going to go over estimate just stick to mercy killing it no reason to try to shame the damn runner for no reason.

I'll start with the 'not researching' part first - Basically, the runner I had in mind swore a lot, admitted their game wasn't marathon friendly and made a colossal mess of the run. It was not good watching. The run, in my opinion, should have been mercy killed long before it ended as it was clear the runner wasn't practiced enough to pull off, well, half of what they wanted to.

I think the point is that if *DGQ events are going to have rules then they need to be followed, but they also need to be enforced. Exceptions and leniencies can be made as and when they need to - I hate to refer back to Blueglass' tragic Ecco run, but it's a good example. It was a bonus run, and as such should not be held up by SDA rules - but I think it has a wider impact. It should be made clear to the runner if their run was rendered invalid by SDA rules for whatever reason, or there should be an optional SDA-Friendly 'setting', i.e. a runner decides beforehand whether to have their run managed under SDA rules.

I think basically what this string of discussion comes down to - I mean this as a relatively novice viewer - is giving the runners a bit more control over their run whilst explaining to the viewers a little better the context for these runs, so perhaps the couch/runner could be encouraged to talk about the current WRs and how this run compares to them - as some do already, actually. I remember this year's Pro Skater runs being pretty good for things like that.

[quote="zastbat"][quote="Loerwyn"]As for the penalty? Well, I would have thought your run being considered void would be penalty enough. And if you're constantly making mistakes, then there is also the idea you may potentially lose viewers to your own stream. I know there's a runner or two I would certainly not be researching based on their SGDQ performances.[/quote]

The idea of a penalty is by far the worst thing to come up in this thread.  Voiding out someones run because they broke sda rules would be the stupidest shit anyone could have ever think of considering the fact that there are quite a few parts of the community that do not care about sda rules and this would also mean you are not allowed to use backup saves made before hand or risk being punished for it.  Also everyone is going to make mistakes in their runs and if you fuck up hard enough your run is mercy killed that is enough imo.  Also no one is going to lose viewers in their stream because of one marathon run they may not gain any but they wont lose any.  As for you not wanting to research people because of a bad marathon performance that really is a shame since that might not have been in their control.

So basically what im saying is screw penalties and if a run is going to go over estimate just stick to mercy killing it no reason to try to shame the damn runner for no reason.[/quote]
I'll start with the 'not researching' part first - Basically, the runner I had in mind swore a lot, admitted their game wasn't marathon friendly and made a colossal mess of the run. It was not good watching. The run, in my opinion, should have been mercy killed long before it ended as it was clear the runner wasn't practiced enough to pull off, well, half of what they wanted to.

I think the point is that if *DGQ events are going to have rules then they need to be followed, but they also need to be enforced. Exceptions and leniencies can be made as and when they need to - I hate to refer back to Blueglass' tragic Ecco run, but it's a good example. It was a bonus run, and as such should not be held up by SDA rules - but I think it has a wider impact. It should be made clear to the runner if their run was rendered invalid by SDA rules for whatever reason, or there should be an optional SDA-Friendly 'setting', i.e. a runner decides beforehand whether to have their run managed under SDA rules.

I think basically what this string of discussion comes down to - I mean this as a relatively novice viewer - is giving the runners a bit more control over their run whilst explaining to the viewers a little better the context for these runs, so perhaps the couch/runner could be encouraged to talk about the current WRs and how this run compares to them - as some do already, actually. I remember this year's Pro Skater runs being pretty good for things like that.

UberGoose

2014-07-10 10:46:56 am

Quote from Cenze:

Nonetheless if some runners wanted to use it (apparently they do since the subject came up)

It wasn't brought up by runners.

Worn_Traveler

Edit history:

Worn_Traveler: 2014-07-10 10:53:27 am

2014-07-10 10:51:31 am

Formerly known as Skullboy

If we go by SDA rules for every run then:
1. timing runs would be different since SDA timing is usually not the same as RTA/ whatever people use.
2. any runs on powerpak or flash cart wouldn't be allowed since they are not original carts or official rereleases.
3. you'd never hear the term WR used as a definitive statement for a run.

Marathon runs fall into a weird realm of SDA and RTA and SRL rules. It depends a lot on the runner and the games community.

xcd

Edit history:

xcd: 2014-07-10 10:53:02 am

2014-07-10 10:51:43 am

Cube Throw = OoB

On the topic of estimates, the current system is perfectly fine. I realize there's an issue with going UNDER estimate now (shocking considering AGDQ 2014 was 4 hours behind schedule), and if this arises again, just play a sponsor slideshow and video game music during breaks. There's no need for a WR/PB thing on stream as a dozen people have stated already. Nothing good can come out of that. If someone wants to know WR, let them search "[game] wr speedrun" on google, or just go to the runners page and they can find it there. This isn't an urgent issue and I feel like people are nitpicking at dumb little stuff because all of the big issues that actually need attention were brought up in post #1.

Also I think a minimalist approach to a stream layout is good, and adding more stuff to the layout only adds more problems. Keep it simple.

Hyperresonance

Edit history:

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 11:03:13 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:59:19 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:55:34 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:54:30 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:54:19 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:54:02 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:53:46 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:53:14 am

Hyperresonance: 2014-07-10 10:53:06 am

2014-07-10 10:51:59 am

This was the first GDQ I attended and I had a great time.

I want to thank testrunner and cool matty for their support of the problems that happened during my banjo tooie run. I was very frustrated after my run and made some harsh tweets directed at the tech crew for which I deeply apologize.

Kirby, duke, testrunner, and cool matty covered the majority of the issues. One thing that wasn't mentioned is that my twitch username was spelled incorrectly in the title of the stream at the time. It was spelled correctly on the stream itself though. Simple things that should not be overlooked.

The thing that frustrated me the most was cloakedyoshi and kirby walking up to me literally seconds after my run ended and telling me "they missed break in." Breaking into grunty industries without the train is the single biggest sequence break in the run using a clockwork warp. A friend of mine uploaded my run to youtube with the chat and when i was doing the second clockwork warp of the run, I said something like "this is another instance of clockwork warping" to which the chat replied "we didn't see the first instance." I understand that the stream sometimes goes down, but I needed to be informed of this. It killed a lot of the hype for the most broken level in the game.

I also found out that my donation reader was changed at the last second from witwix to zachsk which wouldn't be a problem but they should have collaborated with me right before my run started. All that needed to be said was "I will let you know when a good time for donations is" and we wouldn't have been talking over each other. Also I think he was particularly quiet in general compared to other readers like Spikevegeta. The donation readers should at least watch one speedrun of the game they are hosting for so they have a feel for when downtime is.

I want to watch the past broadcast of my run but I simply can't bring myself to do so because I am either cringing every time I collect a jinjo or interrupting the host. It's unbearable to watch. The audio issues also made it extremely difficult to focus on playing and commentating. I know commentary could have been much better for my run (couple people on the couch were kinda quiet) but the audio issues and constant donation reading made it nearly impossible to provide good commentary.

That all being said, the tech crew did their best and they aren't perfect, and there were certainly some communication gaps between the host, the tech crew, the couch, and myself. Take all this as a lesson for next time. Hopefully there will be, because this didn't give tooie the greatest GDQ debut. For a run that just about everyone was telling me they were super hype for, it turned out not to be.

As for the hotel issues, I'm not sure why they happened to others and not myself. We had a fridge in our room (which other people used and I had no problem with because I found out some people's were taken out), room service came every single day and there were no extra charges added to my account. I'm not sure if our room location (first floor) had anything to do with the prompt service. Vivalagaming360 told me in the 11 days he was there, room service came twice, and I believe he was on an upper floor.

Other than that the overall experience was awesome. Definitely still want to attend AGDQ if I can.

This was the first GDQ I attended and I had a great time.

I want to thank testrunner and cool matty for their support of the problems that happened during my banjo tooie run. I was very frustrated after my run and made some harsh tweets directed at the tech crew for which I deeply apologize.

Kirby, duke, testrunner, and cool matty covered the majority of the issues. One thing that wasn't mentioned is that my twitch username was spelled incorrectly in the title of the stream at the time. It was spelled correctly on the stream itself though. Simple things that should not be overlooked.

The thing that frustrated me the most was cloakedyoshi and kirby walking up to me literally seconds after my run ended and telling me "they missed break in." Breaking into grunty industries without the train is the single biggest sequence break in the run using a clockwork warp. A friend of mine uploaded my run to youtube with the chat and when i was doing the second clockwork warp of the run, I said something like "this is another instance of clockwork warping" to which the chat replied "we didn't see the first instance." I understand that the stream sometimes goes down, but I needed to be informed of this. It killed a lot of the hype for the most broken level in the game.

I also found out that my donation reader was changed at the last second from witwix to zachsk which wouldn't be a problem but they should have collaborated with me right before my run started. All that needed to be said was "I will let you know when a good time for donations is" and we wouldn't have been talking over each other. Also I think he was particularly quiet in general compared to other readers like Spikevegeta. The donation readers should at least watch one speedrun of the game they are hosting for so they have a feel for when downtime is.

I want to watch the past broadcast of my run but I simply can't bring myself to do so because I am either cringing every time I collect a jinjo or interrupting the host. It's unbearable to watch. The audio issues also made it extremely difficult to focus on playing and commentating. I know commentary could have been much better for my run (couple people on the couch were kinda quiet) but the audio issues and constant donation reading made it nearly impossible to provide good commentary.

That all being said, the tech crew did their best and they aren't perfect, and there were certainly some communication gaps between the host, the tech crew, the couch, and myself. Take all this as a lesson for next time. Hopefully there will be, because this didn't give tooie the greatest GDQ debut. For a run that just about everyone was telling me they were super hype for, it turned out not to be.

As for the hotel issues, I'm not sure why they happened to others and not myself. We had a fridge in our room (which other people used and I had no problem with because I found out some people's were taken out), room service came every single day and there were no extra charges added to my account. I'm not sure if our room location (first floor) had anything to do with the prompt service. Vivalagaming360 told me in the 11 days he was there, room service came twice, and I believe he was on an upper floor.

Other than that the overall experience was awesome. Definitely still want to attend AGDQ if I can.

Kotti

2014-07-10 10:53:04 am

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves

The arbitrary number hardly matters after the run but it can be helpful at the beginning. If I start watching 10 minutes into a Zelda run with a 5+ hour estimate I know I can stop watching for 5 hours and not miss anything interesting but if I see a Morrowind run with a 10 minute estimate I might get interested in seeing how it's done. Might as well have the number be as accurateas possible.

kirbymastah

2014-07-10 10:54:04 am

<(^_^)>

Quote from Kotti:

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves

The arbitrary number hardly matters after the run but it can be helpful at the beginning. If I start watching 10 minutes into a Zelda run with a 5+ hour estimate I know I can stop watching for 5 hours and not miss anything interesting but if I see a Morrowind run with a 10 minute estimate I might get interested in seeing how it's done. Might as well have the number be as accurateas possible.

That's what the time estimate is for <_<

Kotti

2014-07-10 10:55:22 am

And in the past the estimates have been "worst case scenario + setup" and way off the actual lenght of the run.

Deuceler

2014-07-10 10:56:06 am

SPEEDruns not SAFEruns

I edited all my previous posts to nothing and would like if someone on the staff could delete them. My questions/concerns all got answered and I don't want to be involved in some sort of flame war. It's tough to the judge the marathon from a viewer standpoint against those who attend, regardless of issues it was a success and I'm looking forward to future marathons. Hopefully all the concerns brought up will be put into consideration and fixed/changed for AGDQ. I'm sure the staff is working to get all things addressed and taken care of. See ya'll in January

TheMG2

Edit history:

TheMG2: 2014-07-10 11:00:43 am

2014-07-10 10:56:22 am

Quote from Kotti:

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves

The arbitrary number hardly matters after the run but it can be helpful at the beginning. If I start watching 10 minutes into a Zelda run with a 5+ hour estimate I know I can stop watching for 5 hours and not miss anything interesting but if I see a Morrowind run with a 10 minute estimate I might get interested in seeing how it's done. Might as well have the number be as accurateas possible.

I'm not trying to say estimates should be inaccurate. I do agree that setup whatever should probably be included separately. My point was made more to the people who want wr/pb/whatever listed somewhere at a GDQ.

EDIT: I'm not a runner. I'm friendly with several runners. I don't want them to be shot down if they don't meet the OMG HYPE ARBITRARY NUMBER GOAL, that you guys want to set on them.

I am not a runner, and I still think that putting wr/pb/whatever on stream/schedule/whatever is the dumbest idea ever.

[quote="Kotti"][quote="TheMG2"]I don't see why you need to have an arbitrary number determine how good a run is, rather than let the runner explain for themselves[/quote]The arbitrary number hardly matters after the  run but it can be helpful at the beginning. If I start watching 10 minutes into a Zelda run with a 5+ hour estimate I know I can stop watching for 5 hours and not miss anything interesting but if I see a Morrowind run with a 10 minute estimate I might get interested in seeing how it's done. Might as well have the number be as accurateas possible.[/quote]
I'm not trying to say estimates should be inaccurate. I do agree that setup whatever should probably be included separately. My point was made more to the people who want wr/pb/whatever listed somewhere at a GDQ.

EDIT: I'm not a runner. I'm friendly with several runners. I don't want them to be shot down if they don't meet the OMG HYPE ARBITRARY NUMBER GOAL, that you guys want to set on them.

I am not a runner, and I still think that putting wr/pb/whatever on stream/schedule/whatever is the dumbest idea ever.

kirbymastah

Edit history:

kirbymastah: 2014-07-10 10:59:06 am

2014-07-10 10:56:49 am

<(^_^)>

Quote from Kotti:

And in the past the estimates have been "worst case scenario + setup" and way off the actual lenght of the run.

And that's already been discussed and referred to; setup time shouldn't be included in the displayed estimate.

EDIT: If people want to bring up that estimates are overestimates, maybe that should be made clear in the schedule. Regardless, we do not need some "WR/PB" time as a time estimate nor to determine the quality of a run.

z1mb0bw4y

Edit history:

z1mb0bw4y: 2014-07-10 11:04:14 am

2014-07-10 11:03:25 am

Gets the cake.

I do agree that our safety estimates have gone a little overboard recently. For example, the estimate for the portal 1 run (which on the worst of all days would never have been over 12 minutes from either of us) was 25 minutes. The reasoning was 15 mins horrific run-time estimate, +5min for PC game setup, +5min for setup in general. A lot of people both in the portal community and out of it gave both of us crap for "wow it's gonna take you 25 mins? WR is less than 9 that's horrific." It would be nice to see setup listed separately from the run estimate in the future, because as it stands now when I see "Long-Game 2: The Plot Lengthens (Estimate 8 Hours)" I'm wondering whether I should be back in 6.5 or 7.

btrim

2014-07-10 11:13:43 am

This is from both a viewer and a runner position: Make the times shown on stream closer to reality.

There are suggestions for how to do that, and I do agree the best option is probably removing setup time from estimates. If setup time is already planned to be removed from the on-screen estimate, great! I don't recall reading this as "This will absolutely be done at the next GDQ" but it's a big thread, I may have missed it. Until that, open discussion should be a good thing.

I find it very sad the way people are so dismissive of comments from viewers who make the whole "doing arbitrary things for charitable donations" thing actually work in the first place.

kariohki

2014-07-10 11:19:50 am

romscout and others have covered most of what I would've said, so I agree with the first post in the thread.

These are just thoughts from a viewer and off-site helper, who also happens to have a very bad memory. Vague things remembered. I remember feeling at one time that there was inconsistency in IRC chat modding when it came to certain hot button topics. There also didn't seem to be much going on in the mod IRC, either it wasn't being checked or it wasn't known about, but at times there was seemingly no contact between chat and mods or mods and on-site people. Someone said about a volunteer liaison type role? That would work well.

mike89 said things about mods being on the same level when it comes to discussions about things, and I agree with that too.

Even though we're all adults, or if not we're at least of a smart enough age to comprehend things (not counting tag along children here ofc), there seems to be some unspoken rules that need to be said and kept consistent. Like treating the equipment nicely, or really enforcing the curse rule. Especially now that things are so big that there really isn't a graveyard shift anymore (it's daytime somewhere). Things like that need to be added to the rule list with consequences that will be carried out. I think that's more important than if someone uses a debug code in a run to enforce.

When doing a couch roll call, I think it would also be nice for the donation reader to say who they are, and especially too if they've been on for a few runs. Maybe even add that info as part of the ticker?

Splits for races is a good idea, and with upgraded stream layouts it would fit fine.

I liked the setup time being shown in the schedule grid on the site. I also agree with taking setup time out of the run estimate time, maybe assume X minutes for same console setups and Y minutes for changing consoles setups.

I had a blast being on the twitter handling crew! I think setting up this group a bit earlier pre-marathon would be good, maybe around the time when the schedule is first made? This way more people can be found to cover more timezones and account for people needing to sleep/work/go outside.

All I can think of for now, I hope it was constructive enough.

romscout and others have covered most of what I would've said, so I agree with the first post in the thread.

These are just thoughts from a viewer and off-site helper, who also happens to have a very bad memory. Vague things remembered. I remember feeling at one time that there was inconsistency in IRC chat modding when it came to certain hot button topics. There also didn't seem to be much going on in the mod IRC, either it wasn't being checked or it wasn't known about, but at times there was seemingly no contact between chat and mods or mods and on-site people. Someone said about a volunteer liaison type role? That would work well.

mike89 said things about mods being on the same level when it comes to discussions about things, and I agree with that too.

Even though we're all adults, or if not we're at least of a smart enough age to comprehend things (not counting tag along children here ofc), there seems to be some unspoken rules that need to be said and kept consistent. Like treating the equipment nicely, or really enforcing the curse rule. Especially now that things are so big that there really isn't a graveyard shift anymore (it's daytime somewhere). Things like that need to be added to the rule list with consequences that will be carried out. I think that's more important than if someone uses a debug code in a run to enforce.

When doing a couch roll call, I think it would also be nice for the donation reader to say who they are, and especially too if they've been on for a few runs. Maybe even add that info as part of the ticker?

Splits for races is a good idea, and with upgraded stream layouts it would fit fine.

I liked the setup time being shown in the schedule grid on the site. I also agree with taking setup time out of the run estimate time, maybe assume X minutes for same console setups and Y minutes for changing consoles setups.

I had a blast being on the twitter handling crew! I think setting up this group a bit earlier pre-marathon would be good, maybe around the time when the schedule is first made? This way more people can be found to cover more timezones and account for people needing to sleep/work/go outside.

All I can think of for now, I hope it was constructive enough.

Cenze

2014-07-10 11:20:31 am

Quote from TheMG2:

I don't want them to be shot down if they don't meet the OMG HYPE ARBITRARY NUMBER GOAL, that you guys want to set on them.

It doesn't seem like there's much more to point out on the actual subject since both sides have said their opinions, but I do think it's worth pointing out again that no one is suggesting that those options would be mandatory. I mean, it wouldn't even make sense to have that for a race or for a short run, so I'd figure that'd be clear.

TheMG2

2014-07-10 11:24:56 am

So far, two people that are actual runners have said they would want something like this. The majority have said "no". There is absolutely no point in displaying something for 4 runs only.

Reiska

2014-07-10 11:30:25 am

I'd just like to toss in an opinion on the debate of whether to show WRs and PBs and whatnot on the layout (and to be clear, I am solidly against the idea):

The raw speed of a run does not always directly correlate with its entertainment value. The easiest example of this for me to call upon is the Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones run from AGDQ 2014. I was massively entertained by that run in spite of it running long, and would have continued to be entertained if it hadn't been mercy killed. (I can understand this sentiment might not be shared by someone less familiar with the series, to be fair!) By contrast, the Fire Emblem 7 run during the bonus stream, while technically extremely impressive, was an extremely boring run only made watchable by Molotov's excellent commentary, because the level of RNG manipulation going on removed any sense of tension in the gameplay.

The short of it is that, at least for me, a lot of the excitement in watching a live speedrun is the tension of not knowing if everything will get executed perfectly. I feel the runners' elation when things go well, and sympathize with their frustration when they don't, and both contribute to the ultimate hype of a marathon from a viewing perspective.

I'd just like to toss in an opinion on the debate of whether to show WRs and PBs and whatnot on the layout (and to be clear, I am solidly against the idea):

The raw speed of a run does not always directly correlate with its entertainment value.  The easiest example of this for me to call upon is the Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones run from AGDQ 2014.  I was massively entertained by that run in spite of it running long, and would have continued to be entertained if it hadn't been mercy killed. (I can understand this sentiment might not be shared by someone less familiar with the series, to be fair!)  By contrast, the Fire Emblem 7 run during the bonus stream, while technically extremely impressive, was an extremely boring run only made watchable by Molotov's excellent commentary, because the level of RNG manipulation going on removed any sense of tension in the gameplay.

The short of it is that, at least for me, a lot of the excitement in watching a live speedrun is the tension of not knowing if everything will get executed perfectly.  I feel the runners' elation when things go well, and sympathize with their frustration when they don't, and both contribute to the ultimate hype of a marathon from a viewing perspective.